Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:36:59.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Abiotic versus biotic hierarchies in the assembly of parasite populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2009

T. K. ANDERSON*
Affiliation:
Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ08901, USA
M. V. K. SUKHDEO
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ08901, USA
*
*Corresponding author: 1656 Linden Drive, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI53706, USA. Tel: +608 890 3156. Fax: +608 262 7420. E-mail: tkanderson@wisc.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The presence or absence of parasites within host populations is the result of a complex of factors, both biotic and abiotic. This study uses a non-parametric classification tree approach to evaluate the relative importance of key abiotic and biotic drivers controlling the presence/absence of parasites with complex life cycles in a sentinel, the common killifish Fundulus heteroclitus. Parasite communities were classified from 480 individuals representing 15 fish from 4 distinct marsh sites in each of 4 consecutive seasons between 2006 and 2007. Abiotic parameters were recorded at continuous water monitoring stations located at each of the 4 sites. Classification trees identified the presence of benthic invertebrate species (Gammarus sp. and Littorina sp.) as the most important variables in determining parasite presence: secondary splitters were dominated by abiotic variables including conductance, pH and temperature. Seventy percent of hosts were successfully classified into the correct category (infected/uninfected) based on only these criteria. The presence of competent definitive hosts was not considered to be an important explanatory variable. These data suggest that the most important determinant of the presence of these parasite populations in the common killifish is the availability of diverse communities of benthic invertebrates.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009
Figure 0

Table 1. Abiotic and biotic variables sampled within four salt marshes in the New Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands(These data were used as predictor variables in classification and regression tree analyses.)

Figure 1

Fig. 1. (a) Classification tree and decision criteria for predicting the presence or absence of Ascocotyle diminuta in the killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus. Decision criteria, split size and infection status (percentage infected in black, uninfected in white) are identified. (b) Cross-validation relative error plots for a single 10-fold cross-validation including 1-SE estimates for each tree size. Under unstratified cross-validation, a tree size of 5 is selected using the 1-SE rule: the best tree size was taken as the smallest tree such that its prediction error rate is within 1 standard error of the minimum.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. (a) Classification tree and decision criteria for predicting the presence or absence of Paratenuisentis ambiguous in the killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus. Decision criteria, split size and infection status (percentage infected in black, uninfected in white) are identified. (b) Cross-validation relative error plots for a single 10-fold cross-validation including 1-SE estimates for each tree size. Under unstratified cross-validation, a tree size of 9 is selected using the 1-SE rule: the best tree size was taken as the smallest tree such that its prediction error rate is within 1 standard error of the minimum.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. (a) Classification tree and decision criteria for predicting the presence or absence of Contracaecum sp. in the killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus. Decision criteria, split size and infection status (percentage infected in black, uninfected in white) are identified. (b) Cross-validation relative error plots for a single 10-fold cross-validation including 1-SE estimates for each tree size. Under unstratified cross-validation, a tree size of 9 is selected using the 1-SE rule: the best tree size was taken as the smallest tree such that its prediction error rate is within 1 standard error of the minimum.

Figure 4

Table 2. Ranking of factors contributing to infection status of Fundulus heteroclitus for three complex life cycle parasites by overall discriminatory power(Only variables representing primary splitters are presented.)